MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005687908 · doi:10.1109/icalt.2013.103

Recommendation Mechanism Based on Students' Working Memory Capacity in Learning Systems

2013· article· en· W2005687908 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorking memoryCognitive loadPresentation (obstetrics)Computer scienceCognitionMechanism (biology)Information overloadCognitive psychologyHuman–computer interactionPsychologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Students' learning performances are susceptible to their cognitive abilities, such as working memory capacity (WMC). WMC is very limited and can be easily overloaded in learning activities that require complex cognitive tasks. This study aims to provide teachers with meaningful recommendations for designing and improving learning contents and learning presentation based on students' WMC. Our previous research successfully detects students' WMC from their learning behaviours in learning systems. This paper proposes the next step of providing meaningful recommendations to the teachers based on different levels of students' WMC. The recommendations are based on the guidelines of cognitive load theory that are intended to assist in presentation of information in order to reduce working memory overload.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesFrench-language works237,207